Entries categorized "Debates"

There was a lot of hand-wringing among progressives/secular types before, during, and after “Science Guy” Bill Nye’s debate with Creation Museum founder Ken Ham on Tuesday night, which was held at the aforementioned “museum” in Kentucky. There is certainly a good argument for avoiding such debates entirely, as Richard Dawkins does. Eschewing them is probably a wise general rule for proponents of evolution since the debate format gives undeserved credibility to evidence-free assertions like Creationism. Also, debates are too often focused on performance over substance and “winners” and “losers”. For example, Mitt Romney “won” his first Presidential debate by boldly lying about his positions and catching President Obama off-guard. But, having watched it, I’m glad that Nye took the risk with this particular debate.

It's only 2013, but the first GOP Gubernatorial forum was held last Thursday, sans Governor Jan Brewer who may decide to challenge Arizona's constitutional term limits provision. From this report by the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required), the field of candidates is a major disappointment. GOP gubernatorial candidates take the stage at first forum:

Secretary of State Ken ["Birther"] Bennett, Sen. [Capn'] Al Melvin, Dr. John Molina, former GoDaddy executive Christine Jones, and former Maricopa County Attorney [Saint] Andrew Thomas took the stage Oct. 3 at a forum hosted by the Maricopa County Republican Party.

Artist's rendition from the forum.

The candidates were largely on the same page on most issues. All five opposed the education standards known as Common Core, vowed to fight to protect Arizona’s sovereignty from the federal government and pledged to completely follow the Republican Party’s platform. Opposition to Gov. Jan Brewer’s Medicaid expansion plan was nearly universal, and several candidates spoke of the need to bolster Arizona’s economy by lowering taxes.

The only differentiation on issues such as
Medicaid expansion and Common Core were the vehemence with which the
candidates opposed them.

In recent years, the Republican Party has earned the well-deserved nickname of the “Party of NO.” Senior Senator form Kentucky, Mitch McConnell (AKA Senator Gridlock) is the Party of NO’s mascot with an astounding 413 filibusters since 2007.

The latest thing for the Republican National Committee to say “Hell, No!” to is debates on CNN and NBC. Why are they pulling debates from these two national networks? Because they plan to air a specials about Hillary Clinton.

Seriously? Instead of rising to the challenge of the Democratic Party’s early presidential favorite and finding an intelligent candidate (ie, not Rand Paul or Rick Perry), you’re going to HIDE from her and the American people?

Being afraid of a TV special that airs three years before the election is just silly– given the American public’s short attention span.

Words like “onslaught,” “unprecedented,” “extremist,” “dangerous,” “unconstitutional,” “medically unnecessary,” “unscientific,” and “draconian” have been used to describe the Republican Party’s nationwide push to limit women’s healthcare, stop women from choosing to have safe, legal abortions, and close abortion clinics through over-regulation. In the first six months of this year, states have passed 106 provisions related to reproductive health, including 43 that specifically restrict abortion access.

In recent weeks, high-profile, anti-choice legislation in Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and North Dakota has made the news. Thanks to a one-woman filibuster by Texas State Senator Wendy Davis and hundreds of pro-choice protesters watching in the Legislative chambers, Texas is the only Republican-controlled state government in that list that didn’t pass and sign into law anti-choice legislation this spring. (Of course, Texas Governor Rick Perry– vowing to end abortion in Texas altogether– has called for another special session of the Republican-dominated State Legislature to fix that, and Democrats have little hope they will be able to stop the legislation a second time.)

The Arizona House could consider Medicaid expansion as early as today, less than 24 hours after Republicans in a key committee defeated Gov. Jan Brewer’s top legislative priority.

Leaders of a bipartisan coalition backing expansion of the health-care program for the poor met late Monday to plot their options for bringing the measure to a vote.

A floor debate today offers the group its first opportunity to attach it to another bill. But some supporters favored waiting until at least Wednesday to give House Speaker Andy Tobin, who opposes Brewer’s Medicaid expansion plan, an opportunity to bring forward the budget bills rather than see the coalition go around him.

A House vote on the issue, which has driven a wedge through the state’s GOP, would clear the way for consideration of the rest of the fiscal 2014 budget and adjournment of the legislative session.

It has often been said that people do not want to see the "sausage making" process of legislation, and nowhere is that a truer statement than with the "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill.

After multiple attempts by Tea Party senators to add "poison pill" amendments to kill the bill -- all defeated -- there was a death-defying friendly amendment offered yesterday by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to treat gay partners equally under federal law for immigration purposes. Tea-Publicans howled that this was a deal breaker, and Sen. Leahy eventually withdrew his amendment.

Of course, Advocates
were outraged at lack of LGBT protection in immigration bill. This is a timing problem. This bill needs to move forward in the Senate now. The U.S. Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until June. Should the Court strike down DOMA, as most court observers anticipate, it would remove the obstacle to treating gay partners equally under federal law. The immigration bill will still be going through the "sausage making" process, and may be amended to respond to any Supreme Court ruling. Patience and perseverance are virtues in the "sausage making" process.

After five days of debate over dozens of amendments, the Judiciary
Committee voted 13 to 5 in support of the bill, with three Republicans
joining the committee’s 10 Democrats. The legislation emerged with its
core provisions largely intact, including new visa programs for
high-tech and low-skilled workers and new investments in strengthening
border control.

“The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us
and it is long past time for reform. I hope that our history, our
values, and our decency can inspire us finally to take action,”
committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said. “We need an
immigration system that lives up to American values and helps write the
next great chapter in American history by reinvigorating our economy and
enriching our communities.”

In just three short months in the U.S. Senate, our boy Jeff Flake has managed to dethrone the Septegenarian Ninja Turtle, Mitch McConnell, as the most disliked senator among Americans. Getting caught lying to a grieving mother who lost her son to gun violence will do that. The Atlantic Wire reports, How Jeff Flake Became the Most Unpopular Senator in America:

Public Policy Polling, in their latest survey on the fallout of the recent vote on gun legislation, explains just how much people don't like Mr. Flake:

Just 32% of voters
approve of him to 51% who disapprove and that -19 net approval rating
makes him the most unpopular sitting Senator we've polled on, taking
that label from Mitch McConnell.

Since December, it was hard to imagine anyone unseating McConnell because, according to PPP and
despite the Kentucky Senator's internal numbers, the Senate Minority
Leader was always' the old curmudgeon who represented the laughable state of America's hatred toward Congress.

* * *

So what happened to the junior Senator from Arizona? According to
PPP's polling, conducted April 25-26 in the aftermath of the gun vote
that killed legislation on background checks, it's blowback — Democrats
and independent voters have really flaked on Flake:

You may have read about this in the Arizona Republic last week. Caren Teves’ son Alex died during the Aurora theater mass shooting while
shielding his girlfriend from the gunman’s bullets. She wrote a letter
to Sen. Flake, in which she “invited him to our home to sit in our
son’s chair, his empty chair” and “feel the emptiness and have dinner
with us and discuss” guns. Senator Told Shooting Victim’s Mother He Supported Background Checks, Then Voted Against Them:

In response, Flake sent Teves a hand-written letter claiming that he
supported one of the most important steps Congress could take to improve
gun safety — expanding background checks:

Just days after raising Teves’ hopes that the Senate would act to prevent
future mothers from experiencing the same pain inflicted upon her
family, Flake voted against background checks.
Flake claimed to oppose the bill because it “would expand background
checks far beyond commercial sales to include almost all private
transfers — including between friends and neighbors,” but this claim is false.

In a supreme act of craven cowardice, Republican senators led a filibuster to prevent even advancing to debate of the Manchin-Toomey background checks amendment, and a simple up or down vote on the merits. The final vote was 54 to 46.

Sen. Harry Reid changed his vote from yes to no to preserve his right to bring a motion for reconsideration.

Sen. John McCain voted to end the filibuster. Sen. Jeff Flake demonstrated his craven cowardice by voting for the filibuster to deny his friend Gabby Giffords a simple up or down vote on the merits.

This is a 55 54-vote majority of senators in favor of this amendment, all that should ever be required to pass legislation in a democracy. The recent GOP abuse of the Senate filibuster rules to obstruct any and all legislation required a 60 vote super-majority to break the GOP filibuster and to move to debate of the amendment.

The friendship between Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) is well documented and genuine. At the State of The Union Address in February, Sen. Flake stood and cheered when President Obama intoned:

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.

The families of Newtown deserve a vote.

The families of Aurora deserve a vote.

The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple vote.

Last week, Sen. Flake was among those Senators who voted against a GOP filibuster of any debate of the gun safety bill. But that was only the first GOP filibuster test; each provision of the bill and offered amendments are subject to GOP filibuster obstruction.

On Monday, when the nation was focused on the tragedy in Boston, Sen. Flake quietly announced in a Facebook post that he would vote against the background checks compromise hammered out by his fellow Sens. Manchin and Toomey. He continues the line of B.S. that he has been saying for weeks, that he "supports background checks" -- just not anything that has a snowball's chance in hell of passing Congress.

The darling of the Tea Party -- and Beltway media villagers -- Sen. Marco "Big Gulp" Rubio (R-FL), did the "full Ginsburg," er "full Rubio" to his Beltway media villager sycophants, on the Sunday bobblehead shows today. Have water handy! Out: Full Ginsburg. In: Full Rubio.

I really don't get why this freshman back bencher and intellectual lightweight garners so much fawning by the Beltway media villagers. Maybe it is because he is as shallow and vacuous as they are, kindred spirits of sorts. Talk about the "dumbing down" od America.

Sen. "Big Gulp," a member of the Gang of Eight (what is it with senators and their need for gang membership?), decried the use of "poison pill" amendments he expects from his fellow Tea-Publicans on immigration reform.Then turning on hs heel, Sen. "Big Gulp" endorsed the NRA "poison pill" amendment to kill the bipartisan background checks agreement reached by Sens. Manchin and Toomey.

The only principle that Sen. "big Gulp" believes in is his own self promotion for consideration as a presidential candidate in 2016. This Tea Party punk should focus on how to be a senator first. He is definitely not ready for prime time.

"Half a loaf is better than no bread." - Thomas Jefferson, paraphrasing an ancient proverb

Political compromise used to be defined by this ancient proverb. Or as a Democratic senator once told me, progress is made through incremental change -- we'll take the half loaf today and come back next year to try again for the other half. When you demand "all or nothing" you usually get nothing.

There is not a whole lot of this "long game" patience and perseverance in today's politics. As I have said before, I blame the instant gratification society that modern technology has created. Everybody wants everything right now!

A bipartisan group of senators has struck a deal to expand gun
background checks to all commercial sales — whether at gun shows, via
the Internet or in any circumstance involving paid advertising,
according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

The amendment to the guns legislation already proposed in the
Senate would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless
there was advertising or an online service involved.

Oh geezus. The Septegenarian Ninja Turtle, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who polls lower than toe fungus in Kentucky (PPP's second Kentucky poll), should just resign as Senate Minority Leader right now. Our boy Mitch says he will join the village idiot Aqua Buddha, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and his 12 Disciples in a blind filibuster of any and all new gun safety regulations, bill unseen. Leadership never participates in a filibuster (McConnell did briefly join the junior senator from Kentucky in his filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director over the administration's drone warfare policy).

“While nobody knows yet what Senator Reid’s plan is for the gun bill,
if he chooses to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid Bill
(S. 649), Senator McConnell will oppose cloture on proceeding to that bill,” a McConnell spokesman said.

"Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote
no, that's your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in
the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays,
graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a
bullet from a gun.

* * *

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.

The families of Newtown deserve a vote.

The families of Aurora deserve a vote.

The
families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless
other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple
vote."

The village idiot Aqua Buddha, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and his 12 Disciples threatening to filibuster any and all gun safety bills should be locked in a room with these grieving families and have to answer to them.

I think about patience every day as I continue to regain my speech and
the mobility I lost after I was shot in the head two years ago, while
meeting with my constituents in the parking lot of grocery store in my
district.

I think about patience and determination, because I still wake up every day wanting to make the world a better place.

But lately I’m not feeling too patient toward senators and
representatives who are listening to the misinformation that’s out there
about universal background checks instead of to their constituents, and
saying they may not support common sense solutions to ending gun
violence.

What are they waiting for? Ninety percent of Americans support
universal background checks, which will be debated soon. Seventy-four
percent of NRA members support background checks. Seventy-two percent of
hunters support background checks, the Bull Moose Society reported this
week. I can’t remember a time when this many Americans spoke with such a
united voice in favor of anything.

Kentucky Sen. Rand
Paul’s threat to filibuster any new gun restrictions is gathering steam,
as a dozen of his Republican colleagues have now signed onto his plan.

The Kentucky Republican and Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee
(R-Utah) first wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid late last
month to warn him of their intention to try to tie up the Senate if, as
planned, Reid moved forward with legislation that would expand
background checks and attempt to crack down on interstate gun
trafficking.

* * *

In addition to Paul, Lee, Cruz, Rubio and Moran, the Republican who have signed the second letter are Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Jim Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho, Dan Coats of Indiana and Pat Roberts of Kansas.

“We will oppose the motion to proceed on any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions,” they write.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid never fails to disappoint me. He has successfully managed to do so again.

Progressive Democrats have for months been working on reforms to the antiquated and arcane rules of the U.S. Senate that provide for a minority filibuster of bills supported by a clear majority of senators -- you know, majority rule in a democracy.

Tea-Publicans, led by the Septegenarian Ninja Turtle, Mitch McConnell, have engaged in an unprecedented abuse of the Senate filibuster rules in recent years, converting the Senate into a super-majoritarian body to conduct even the most mundane Senate business. It is a tyranny by an obstructionist minority that rendered the U.S. Senate a dysfunctional body incapable of doing the people's business.

The effort to reform the Senate filibuster rules by Progressive Democrats was an atempt to light a candle rather curse the darkness of Tea-Publican tyranny. To quote St. Matthew 5:15: "No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is
placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house." Harry Reid just doused the candlelit lamp of filibuster reform under a basket.

The Loft Cinema will host a community forum that will include every elected policy who represents some part of the City of Tucson Ward 6. That means members of Congress, State Senators and Representatives, County Supervisors, Mayor Rothschild and Ward VI Councilmember Steve Kozachik, who dreamed up and organized the event.

Political cartoonist, Dave Fitzsimmons will be the emcee so the elected officials won't be able to take themselves to seriously as they answer your questions about everything and anything happening in Ward VI.

If you would like to attend please RSVP by calling The Loft at 795.0844, Ward 6 office at 791.4601, or email info@loftcinema.com

KAWC Colorado River Public Media and Arizona Western College Television Services hosted the final Arizona U.S. Senate debate between Dr. Richard Carmona and Rep. Jeff Flake in Yuma on Thursday, focusing on rural issues.

Today is DAY 15 of Arpaio's NO DEBATE PLEDGE. On October 9th Sheriff Arpaio pledged to NOT debate Paul Penzone AND he thinks he can get away with it. Take action now - Call Arpaio's puppeteer, Chad Willems, at Summit Consulting and ask him why Arpaio is too chicken to debate Paul Penzone: (602) 235-9320. Please post your responses here.

Check out one of Penzone's early campaign speeches and a background video on Arpaio after the jump.

Dr. Richard Carmona and Congressman Jeff Flake will meet in their final, televised debate tonight in Yuma. KAWC will host the hour-long afternoon debate, which will air live locally and broadcast nationally on CSPAN.

Arizona Western College will host the debate before a live audience. Seats are limited.

The debate is open to credentialed media only.

WHAT: Final Arizona U.S. Senate Debate

WHEN: Thursday., October 24, 12:30 PM

WHERE: Arizona Western College Main Campus North Wing 3C Building Yuma, AZ

[Martha] McSally never effectively delivered a clear message on her plan to serve the district, or why Barber is not the better candidate.

A big misstep was her signing of the Grover Norquist "no tax" pledge. That’s a move that puts the agenda of a special interest group ahead of those McSally would be expected to represent and serve in CD2 — her constituents.

At a forum hosted by the Sierra Vista Chamber of Commerce last week, McSally called on Barber to apologzie for a broadcast advertisement she claimed was sexist. Barber’s reply was straightforward, and should have settled the issue: The ad was paid for by an organization not affiliated with his campaign, and the congressman had no control over its content. But McSally showed poor judgment by bringing the ad/apology issue up once more in the Q&A and then again in her closing statement. Her actions made a bad impression on most in the audience.

Barber, in the short time he has been in office, has already demonstrated he’s informed and involved in a number of Cochise County issues.

That knowledge comes from years working as an aide to Giffords. His grasp of what is going on in Cochise County and rural Arizona does more than scratch the surface. He recognizes the needs of active duty and veterans returning who have returned from many deployments. He knows the water issues concerning Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca.

In Washington, he serves on the House Armed Services committee, a key legislative body for Fort Huachuca and the military installation in Tucson. Barber also is a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, which provides influence to Washington legislators on border issues.

With all this in mind, Barber offers a better chance to represent the interests of CD 2 as an experienced legislator with a knowledge of how Washington works

Experience and a sincere interest in putting the constituents of CD 2 first make Ron Barber the better candidate on Nov. 6.

Conservative media talking heads were furious with CNN's Candy Crowley after the second presidential debate for real-time fact checking Willard "Mittens" Romney during the debate about the White House response to Libya and making Mittens look like a fool.

CBS's Bob Schieffer would have done the voters of this country a favor last night if he had followed Candy Crowley's lead and real-time fact checked Romney on this exchange during the debate, especially since both candidates invited it:

Romney stated that he was for "government guarantees" for the auto industry after it came out of a managed bankruptcy.

Obama said to Romney, "You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn't true."

Romney said in response, "You're wrong," three times. The Republican concluded, "People can look it up."

I am frequently reminded of the 2000 election in which it was said about George W. Bush that the nation was at peace and prosperity, give the kid a chance, what could go wrong? Yeah.

The New York Times editorial opinion today is a brutal assessment that Willard "Mittens" Romney badly failed the commander-in-chief test on Monday night. "Mittens" is woefully unprepared. The Final Presidential Debate:

Mitt Romney has nothing really coherent or substantive to say about domestic policy, but at least he can sound energetic and confident about it. On foreign policy, the subject of Monday night’s final presidential debate, he had little coherent to say and often sounded completely lost. That’s because he has no original ideas of substance on most world issues, including Syria, Iran and Afghanistan.

During the debate, on issue after issue, Mr. Romney sounded as if he had read the boldfaced headings in a briefing book — or a freshman global history textbook — and had not gone much further than that. Twice during the first half-hour, he mentioned that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were active in northern Mali. Was that in the morning’s briefing book?

At other times, he announced that he had a “strategy” for the Middle East, particularly Iran and Syria, and really for the whole world, but gave no clue what it would be — much like his claim that he has a plan to create 12 million jobs and balance the budget while also cutting taxes, but will not say what it is. At his worst, Mr. Romney sounded like a beauty pageant contestant groping for an answer to the final question. “We want a peaceful planet,” he said. “We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they’re going to have a bright and prosperous future and not be at war.”

He added that the United States “didn’t ask for” the mantle of global leadership but was willing to wear it. We wondered what Ronald Reagan would have thought of that.

Mr. Romney’s problem is that he does not actually have any real ideas on foreign policy beyond what President Obama has already done, or plans to do. He supports the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan — and was quick to insist on Monday night that he would pull out by 2014. He thinks there should be economic sanctions on Iran, and he thinks the United States should be encouraging Syrian opposition forces that seem moderate. Mr. Romney said he would work with Saudi Arabia and Qatar on this, but those governments are funneling arms to the jihadist groups that he says he abhors.

The president kept up the attack at virtually every opportunity, showing no sign of the oddly disconnected Barack Obama who lost the first debate. When Mr. Romney called for spending more money on the military than the United States can afford or the military wants, Mr. Obama moved in: “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets.” Mr. Romney tried to revive the Republican claim that Mr. Obama conducted an “apology tour” at the start of his presidency, which Mr. Obama correctly called “the biggest whopper” of a campaign that has been filled with them. And he took a dig at Mr. Romney’s recent world travels. “When I went to Israel as a candidate,” he said, “I didn’t take donors, I didn’t attend fund-raisers.”

Mr. Romney tried to say that the president had “wasted” the last four years in trying to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama said, “We’ve been able to mobilize the world. When I came into office, the world was divided. Iran was resurgent. Iran is at its weakest point, economically, strategically, militarily.”

Willard "Mittens" Romney doesn't know his countries from his continents any better than did the Quitta from Wasilla, Sarah Palin, in 2008. Romney referred to Libya, Egypt and Mali as being in the Middle East -- These are countries in North Africa. Romney also made this jaw-dropping statement:

“Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” — Romney

The Washington Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler says "Romney says this a lot but it is an unusual statement, considering that Syria shares no border with Iran — Iraq and Turkey are in the way — and that Iran has about 1,500 miles of coastline along the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, leading to the Arabian Sea."

Sweet Jesus! This guy wants to be the leader of the free world and he can't even find the Middle East on a map? Let me educate you, Mittens.

Romney also repeated his oft-repeated favorite lie:

“The president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America.”— Romney

Again, the Washington Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler says "Back in early 2011, this column awarded Romney Four Pinocchios for the “apology tour” claim, saying it was not borne out by the facts. Here’s a link to our lengthy look at this claim."

Romney’s new ad this morning features footage of him at yesterday’s debate attacking Obama for his fictional apology tour. He is a shameless pathological liar.

As I have been posting about for some time, the foreign policy advisers to Willard "Mittens" Romney are the very same Bush-Cheney regime Neocon war mongers responsible for the greatest intelligence failures in U.S. history and for propagandizing this country into an unnecesary and illegal war in Iraq. Romney is getting the boys in the band back together for another tour, this time in Syria and Iran.

Romney is loath to mention Bush on the campaign trail,
for obvious reasons, but today they sound like ideological soul mates on
foreign policy. Listening to Romney, you’d never know that Bush left
office bogged down by two unpopular wars that cost America dearly in
blood and treasure. Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy
advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the
neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq
War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher
Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, “Romney’s
likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign
policy if he were elected.” On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and
his team are to the right of Bush. Romney’s embrace of the
neoconservative cause—even if done cynically to woo the right—could turn
into a policy nightmare if he becomes president. [...]

I hope Parker doesn't look too dark in this picture, so I am not accused of racism by the GOP...

By Michael Bryan

I recently took a close look at the CD9 Congressional Debate between Vernon Parker and Kyrsten Sinema (and some obnoxious Libertarian perennial candidate), and one exchange really stood out for me: Kyrsten accused Parker of supporting the entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget plan (time mark 16:40). Then Parker denied supporting the Ryan budget plan (time mark 16:57). That's not what Kyrsten accused you of, Vernon.

Sinema specifically noted that Parker has expressed support for entitlement reforms in the Ryan budget, not the whole thing. Parker is on record saying he does not endorse the whole Ryan budget (though I think that is likely a political imposture adopted in deference to the competitive nature of the District he's running in, and not any specific disagreements - he was unable to name a single real disagreement with the Ryan budget when asked for one).

Notably, Parker did not answer Sinema's allegation by denying that he supports Ryan's entitlement reforms, he denies he supports the whole budget. Not the same thing, Vernon! Answer the charge: do you support the Ryan voucher plan for Medicare (so-called "premium support plan")? He won't deny that he supports that portion of the Ryan plan.

Parker was asked specifically about the Ryan budget in a Politics Unplugged interview on Sept. 2nd (video link). Parker said that the we have to look at entitlement benefits for future generations because the current system is "not working" and that he does support that aspect of the Ryan plan. In addition, when pressed about what about the Ryan plan he DOES NOT support (time mark 4:20), Parker claims that he wants to protect seniors' Social Security benefits (retiree and near-term beneficiaries are held harmless in Ryan's current plan, to prevent a retiree revolt, so there is no distinction here...). As to Medicare, well, Parker doesn't really say what he might disagree with in the Ryan plan, only that Obamacare cuts Medicare, which is just a repetition of the lie that won't die. So, It is hard to see any daylight between Ryan and Parker on entitlement reform, because Parker just won't talk about it. Conclusion: there isn't any.

“For years, the government has been deceiving the American people. The truth is we can’t afford the government we now enjoy. Medicare and Social Security are large drivers of that imbalance. I have three tenants for reform. First, seniors and those nearing retirement must be assured that their benefits will stay the same. We must honor our contract with them. Second, middle age workers must be willing to accept reforms to the current programs to extend the life of these programs. Third, those entering the workforce like my son’s generation need to understand that reforming these systems sooner rather than later increases the chances of meaningful reform in the future. The truth is Congress is too afraid to make the difficult choices, and every day we wait, the solution gets more expensive.”

That certainly is consistent with Ryan's voucher plan, and even with some of Ryan's more ambitious goals for privatizing Social Security. Needless to say, it is also consistent with the $700 billion in Medicare savings present in both Obamacare (which does not cut benefits, and plows the money back into expanded Medicare benefits) and the Ryan plan (which plows those same savings into the wallets of the wealthiest through top-rate tax cuts).

Vernon Parker has an allergy to taking any clear position on the central issues of this campaign. And there is good reason for that: if his views were honestly expressed, he would never be elected in CD9.

The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi
last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a
long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence
that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya.

* * *

Republicans have zeroed in on possible Al Qaeda ties to the Sept. 11 attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens
and three other Americans, and have criticized the Obama administration
for not saying early on that it was an act of terrorism. But after five
weeks of investigation, U.S. intelligence agencies say they have found
no evidence of Al Qaeda participation.

The attack was "carried out following a minimum amount of planning,"
said a U.S. intelligence official, who, like others, spoke on condition
of anonymity to discuss a matter still under investigation. "The
attackers exhibited a high degree of disorganization. Some joined the
attack in progress, some did not have weapons and others just seemed
interested in looting."

A second U.S. official added, "There isn't
any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or
weeks in advance." Most of the evidence so far suggests that "the
attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned
about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" earlier that day, the official said.

As I said before, "This is the most vile form of propaganda from the right-wing noise
machine -- politicizing the deaths of Americans overseas. And Romney
started it before anyone knew that Ambassador Stevens had been killed.
He is shameless, and this should be disqualifying from the presidency."

The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice
about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence,
according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day
that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of
the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger
about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to
the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the
demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests
at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against
the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications
that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional
information is collected and analyzed and as currently available
information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like
self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine
problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video
surveillance and source reports.

The senior intelligence official
said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of
the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo
protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted
the consulate.

“We believe the timing of the attack was
influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming
the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new
report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.

Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in
Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more
interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the
attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of
rehearsals, they never got into the safe room . . . never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

* * *

The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous
or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that
different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute,
however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next
day.

One flub that stood out, however, was his answer to moderator Ted Simons' question regarding the Laffer Curve (supply side economic theory that lowering taxes encourages growth to the extent that tax revenues will actually increase at the lower rate). Simons asked, "The idea that lower taxes equals growth, means more revenue to the government: supply side, Laffer Curve, whatever you want to call it. That kind of economic theory. Valid?"

I can't embed the C-SPAN video clip of the question and Carmona's answer, but you can see it here.

Dr. Carmona said, "It is valid to a certain extent - the markets are much more complex than that, but I'm in agreement with Mark [Victor, the Libertarian candidate], and in fact I'm in agreement with the Congressman that we have to do everything we can to lower the tax rates."

No, Doctor. That is not how any Democrat, even an independent one, should EVER answer such a question. It's like telling a Birther that he has a valid point.

Now, I have been reassured by the Carmona campaign that Dr. Carmona certainly does NOT believe in the economic thoeries surrounding the Laffer Curve - he made a mis-statement in agreeing with the idea to any degree.

His campaign made an official announcement in response to my rather pissed-off late-night inquiry:

"Dr. Carmona wants comprehensive tax reform that would make our tax code simpler and fairer. Dr. Carmona believes raising taxes on the middle class would be hazardous in a still recovering economy, but he would eliminate loopholes for those at the very top. Dr. Carmona would lower corporate tax rates in order to ensure small businesses stop paying the highest rates in the world. But he would also do away with special breaks that allow some of our most profitable businesses to pay nothing in taxes."

A candidate can make mistakes; especially one who is in a bruisingly hard-fought, high-profile race as close as this one, his very first time running for public office. I'll give the good Doctor some slack - and even sent him a contribution for running such an excellent and responsive campaign.

And you should, too. You can be a BlogForArizona contributor to the Push For Victory by contributing to the toss-up Congressional races in Arizona, including Dr. Carmona's. Far better a candidate who made a mistake but shares our values, than one who truly and deeply believes in malarkey like the Laffer Curve - which Jeff Flake certainly does.

But I'll also give Doctor Carmona some advice. Next time, answer such a question in a way that frames the debate, denies the malarkey of the GOP, and supports the President's message. For example:

"No credible economist agrees with Republican's voodoo economic idea that lowering tax rates ultimately always pays for itself by increasing revenues: and I listen to those know know the facts. Certainly, the deficits of the last three decades show that such ideas are ludicrous. There are virtues in keeping taxes low and even reducing rates on middle class folks, however. It puts more money in their pockets that folks will immediately spend to spur demand in our economy in this diffcult time. We don't want to slow the economy down just as it's getting moving again by raising taxes on those average Americans who drive consumer spending, which is over 70% of our economy. But there is no evidence that asking the wealthiest to pay a bit more will hurt economic growth, or hold back job creation. Just the opposite: history teaches us that our economy grows most robustly when the wealthy are asked to shoulder their fair share of funding government. I side with the evidence, the lessons of history, and our struggling Middle Class when it comes to tax policy."

Now that's an answer to Simons' question that provides real contrast between the candidates for the voters.

This Monday, Oct. 22nd starting at 6pm (we'll start gathering about 5:30 to give everyone time to find parking, chat, grab a beer, settle in, etc. - the debate starts at 6pm sharp), Drinking Liberally will have another special session for a viewing party for the third Presidential Debate. The party is at the Shanty on 4th Avenue and 9th Street, as always.

We will have big screens for your enjoyment inside the bar, and outside on the Shanty's beautiful patio. So come on down, hoist a beer, and listen to President Obama (and that other guy) talk about foreign policy more in-depth than we have heard so far in this campaign.

Please remember than whether you are guiding the foreign policy of the world's sole superpower, or just having a beer while watching a debate about it, always drink responsibly.

Drinking Liberally will be bringing you TWO great debates this week! The Presidential Debate on Monday, AND a live action smack-down between the local champions of the Democratic and Republican Parties: Dave Bradley and Frank Antenori, opposing candidates for the Arizona State Senate. Dave and Frank will be debating live on the regular Drinking Liberally day of Wednesday, October 24th. We will gather starting at 7pm, and the debate will begin at 7:30pm.

Dave and Frank will be engaging in a real, old-school debate, moderated very lightly by yours truly, NOT a boring candidate forum. Prepare for a very spirited and informative good time! I trust that Frank will be inviting lots of his supporters, so you may find an opportunity for some debates of your own with the conservative you may find yourself sitting next to! I always enjoy it immensely when our conservative countrymen join us at Drinking Liberally, I hope you will, too.

The attempts by the Neocon chickenhawks in the right-wing noise machine, e.g., Charles Krauthammer, as well as by super-chicken Vietnam draft dodger Willard "Mittens" Romney Willard 'Mittens' Romney had better things to do during the Vietnam War and his Neocon chickenhawk boy wonder Paul Ryan, to conflate the attack on the consulate office in Benghazi, Libya as "what we see in front of us is the absolute unraveling of the Obama administration's foreign policy" as Ryan did yesterday, is complete and utter nonsense.

The Neocon chickenhawks in the right-wing noise machine who have no military or foreign policy experience, and super-chicken Vietnam draft dodger Willard "Mittens" Romney and his Neocon chickenhawk boy wonder Paul Ryan, are in no position to preach to anyone about foreign policy. This is the least experienced, least qualified nominees of a political party in modern American history.

These assholes fully supported the unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq based upon falsified intelligence of "weapons of mass destruction" cooked up by Neocon war mongers serving in the Bush-Cheney regime. Even after this "massive intelligence failure" was self-evident, they insisted that the war in Iraq was justified.

Out of Romney's 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it's likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity -- a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous.

* * *

[O]ne of Romney's top surrogates on the campaign trail is John Bolton, who served as President George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton embodies the reckless neoconservative thinking that was largely responsible for getting us into Iraq under false pretenses. Today, he openly roots for diplomacy with Iran to fail and is all-too-eager to send our men and women in uniform into war. Last year, for instance, Bolton said that, "It would be in our interest to overthrow this regime in Syria."

The Neocons from Project for the New American Century (PNAC) are now with The Foreign Policy Initiative, and this week they argued for U.S. intervention in Syria -- not out of any humanitarian concern for the slaughter of innocents, but out of geopolitical strategy: Syria is a client state of Iran, and supports the Palestinian organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Now is the Time for a Safe Zone in Syria | Foreign Policy Initiative.

Earlier this year, "Galt - Gekko 2012" Neocon war monger adviser Elliott Abrams asked that Congress enact another Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution, this time against Iran. Ryan Adviser Calls On Congress To Authorize War With Iran. Dan Senor, America's version of "Baghdad Bob" during the Iraq war, is also a foreign policy adviser to Paul Ryan.

These Neocon war mongers should be standing trial under the Nuremberg Principles for their Iraq war crimes, not preparing plans for new wars of adventure in Syria and Iran should "Galt- Gekko 20102" win in November.

Vernon Parker finally came out of hiding in his bunker for his first and only head-to-head debate with his opponents in the relatively safe confines of a studio for a short one-half hour. You can see why he’s been avoiding a discussion of the issues. Kyrsten Sinema is the clear choice in CD 9. No wonder even The Arizona Republic(an) endorsed Sinema.

I had a close listen to the Carmona / Flake (and Victor) debate on KAET recently. It wasn't terribly interesting or enlightening, I'm afraid. Carmona did OK for a political debate neophyte, with just one major slip that I'll discuss in a later post.

I can't embed a clip of the C-SPAN feed, unfortunately, but I created a custom clip on their website that you can access here. The clip highlights Flake's ridiculous answer to moderator Ted Simons' question about lessons learned from the Great Recession.

But before even getting to that, it is interesting to listen closely to the end of Libertarian candidate Mark Victor's statement at the very beginning of the clip.

Victor said, "... we need to cut government by 50% just to get started." Immediately after, a voice says "That's right." It was rather faint, and not entirely clear who said it in the video. It's clear it wasn't Victor, and it certainly wasn't Carmona or Simons, so I assumed it was Flake, but I wasn't entirely sure.

So I wrote to the moderator, Ted Simons, who kindly responded to my inquiry as follows:

"Regarding your question regarding a 50% cut in govt comment during AZ Horizon's debate: I can't be sure about this but it appears it was Rep. Flake who said, "that's right," considering both Mr. Victor and I turned to him. But again, I'm not at all positive about that. And my impression is that the remark was in response to more of what Mr. Victor was saying about cutting govt and not just the 50% remark. Not much help, I know, but it's the best I can do for you..."

So the moderator at the table also thinks it was likely Flake who seconded Victor's rather radical notion that we need to cut government by 50% to start. Though, charitably, Simons interprets Flake's shout-out as more generalized agreement with Victor, not specifically the 50% cut. I don't need to be so charitable; nor do you.

Did you know that there was a CD 2 debate in Sierra Vista on Wednesday night? Not if you read the Arizona Daily Star.

You have to read the Sierra Vista Herald for a recap of the debate, and they have the report behind a "premium member" deal for which you have to sign up.

Martha McSally started the evening still whining about the House Majority PAC ad "Recipe," which calls McSally's positions a "recipe for disaster." She has attempted to conflate this ad into a "sexist" attack, Silly Season for McSally.

Team Barber spokesman Prentice said via email that Kolbe “supports privatizing Social Security, so it is no surprise he has endorsed Martha McSally. She wants to raise the retirement age, voucherize Medicare and gamble Social Security in the stock market, just like he does. But Ron Barber is committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare and has stood up against plans to privatize and voucherize these programs—plans that would weaken Social security and Medicare and hurt Arizona seniors.”

McSally likes to portray herself as a "warrior," but she sounds more like a "whiner" when she complains about campaign ads that are not even produced by the Barber campaign. Politics ain't beanbag, lady. If you're reaching for the smelling salts and the fainting couch over a fair campaign ad, you're not cut out for this job.

As they have done at several other candidate forums and debates throughout LD 14, incumbents Republican Senator Gail Griffin and Republican Representatives David Stevens and David Gowan failed to attend and to participate. The Sierra Vista Herald recently editorialized Our View: LD14 deserves better. Their contempt for their constituents is unprecedented.

The issue of immigration reform and the DREAM Act came up during last night's debate. Willard "Mittens" Romney whined that President Obama promised a comprehensive immigration reform bill in his first year during the 2008 campaign, and he failed to deliver.

Somehow Whiner Willard has conveniently forgotten that in Obama's first year, the U.S. and world financial systems were in a catastrophic collapse, and the U.S. and world economy were on their way to cratering into a new economic dark ages, a parting "gift" to President Obama from his predecessor George W. Bush.

It's called prioritizing "Mittens" -- deal with the disasters first. Stop the ship from sinking, then you can rearrange the deck chairs.

Whiner Willard has also conveniently forgotten that Republicans like Sen. John McCain, who once championed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, disavowed his own bill during the 2008 campaign and adopted the GOP hard-line on immigration reform. McCain could have become an elder statesman by working with Obama. Instead, he opted for the role of embittered sore loser, constantly sniping at the man who defeated him.

During last night's debate, President Obama slammed Romney for having endorsed "self-deportation" during the GOP primaries as a credible immigration policy. (Romney's chief anti-immigrant adviser is Kris Kobach, the author of Arizona's SB 1070 and other anti-immigrant measures). Steve Benen writes, Trying (and failing) to defend 'self-deportation':

Romney responded, haltingly:

"Self-deportation says let it, let people make their own choice. What
I was saying is, we're not going to round up 12 million people,
undocumented, illegals, and take them out of the nation. Instead, let,
make people make their own choice. And if they, if they find that, that
they can't get the benefits here that they want and they can't find the
job they want, then they'll make a decision to go a place where, where
they have better opportunities."

“Binders Full Of Women” was certainly an awkward phrase to say and it failed to even work as an answer to the question. Instead, it reminded people of a time when women wore girdles or women in China bound their feet as status symbol that allowed them to marry into money. For some, it sounded like a great idea for a Halloween costume.

And like Big Bird, it became an instant meme.

Romney then went a bit patriarchal, reminding me of the Dabney Coleman character in the 1980s movie, “9 to 5.”

“Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.”

He continued, saying that his chief of staff couldn’t work late because she had to be home “making dinner” and “being with them when they get home from school.”

Romney said, “Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.”

Do fathers not have to get home and cook dinner? Do they not want to be there for their children when school is out? After all, there are such things as single dads who balance children and work. Mitt Romney has obviously been watching too many episodes of “Leave It To Beaver” on TV Land on the campaign trail. The days of Donna Reed are long over, Mr. Romney.

* * *

[F]ew will remember any of that tomorrow because “binders full of women” already has its own Twitter account.

Round two of the 2012 Presidential Debates will be this Tuesday starting at 6pm local time. Drinking Liberally will again be watching at the Shanty in beautiful and torn-up downtown Tucson. Plan to arrive a little early to deal with parking, get a good seat, grab a drink, and settle in before the main event starts.

With three big screens (two of them gigantic) indoors and out, you can relax with friends and fellow liberals and take in this historic and vital event with a beer in hand and pepper popcorn in reach.

The Shanty doesn't serve food (except popcorn), so you are welcome (and encouraged) to bring your favorite munchies, if you like.

Tea-Publican Vernon Parker is hiding in the bunker and refusing to debate his Democratic opponent for the CD 9 congressional seat, Kyrsten Sinema. Not to be deterred by such cowardice, Sinema resorted to a tried and true debate tactic: debating an empty chair at a recent debate (no, not Clint Eastwood's deranged standup comedy).

While it may seem silly to call it a debate with Parker's empty chair,
the fact is that we are well past the point where there can be any
guessing about Parker's campaign strategy.

Mr. Parker has repeatedly dissembled
when asked about his willingness to appear face-to-face with Ms. Sinema
to openly discuss issues of concern to citizens of CD9. Parker's dishonesty goes well beyond simple misstatement of facts.

The word dissemble connotes intent to conceal his real motives by
pretence. The persistence and consistency of his practice of avoiding
directly answering questions posed by (me or) journalists in mainstream
media, as well as feigning desire to debate when asked by friendly media
(conservative talk radio) has made this abundantly clear.

The Republican coward hoping to fool enough voters in Arizona's new
Ninth Congressional District to get elected next month has repeatedly
both claimed to his followers that he wants to appear together and
debate openly with his Democratic opponent Kyrsten Sinema AND refused to
accept NUMEROUS invitations from media and local nonprofit
organizations to facilitate such events.

Presumably Vernon Parker's cowardice in refusing to debate Kyrsten Sinema is what led The Arizona Republic(an) to endorse Kyrsten Sinema over the Tea-Publican candidate, as one would expect. The Republic(an) had no choice but to emphatically endorse Sinema over Parker. Sinema good fit for district.

Forget the bobblehead media villagers on the '"tee-vee" whose debate analysis focuses exclusively on optics and body language and presentation -- because they are all just highly paid actors. They wouldn't know substantive policy arguments if they bit them in the ass, let alone be able to assess who is stating the facts, and who is just full-o-crap.

For the second time in as many presidential elections, Joseph
Biden got to debate a young, attractive Republican candidate who was
demonstrably less qualified to to be president than I am to be chairman
of the World Bank. Joseph Biden is a very lucky man. The Great Political
Matchmaker in the Sky keeps handing him people who are trying — and
failing — to fight above their weight class, and he keeps blowing
through what can now legitimately be called the Bum of the Quadrennium
Club.

There is a deeply held Beltway myth of Paul Ryan, Man of Big Ideas,
and it dies hard. But, if there is a just god in the universe, on
Thursday night, it died a bloody death, was hurled into a pit, doused
with quicklime, buried without ceremony, and the ground above it salted
and strewn with garlic so that it never rises again. On foreign policy,
Ryan occasionally rose, gasping, to the level of obvious neophyte. (He
was more lost in Afghanistan than the Russian army ever was.) On
domestic policy, his alleged wheelhouse, he was vague, untruthful, and
he walked right into a haymaker he should have seen coming from a mile
off, when he started bloviating about Biden's role in the "failed"
stimulus program, only to have Biden slap him around with Ryan's own
requests for stimulus money for his home district back in Wisconsin. He
also made it quite clear that a Romney-Ryan White House will do
everything it can to eliminate a woman's right to choose. This should
make for some fine television commercials over the next few weeks.

Tip Jar

Mo Udall says, "I have learned the difference between a cactus and a caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside." Donate to BlogForArizona to help us keep an eye on the pricks inside the GOP caucuses controlling Arizona's politics. Or you could buy some of our keen swag."
Please consider making a monthly pledge:

Things We Love

Fair Use Info

Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.

BforAZ Merchandise:

Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.

Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.